[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers
mike at nationwideinc.com
Tue May 10 09:58:00 EDT 2011
Thanks for the feedback.
Since this point is germane to my proposal, could I ask for some status on
the discussion that Bill Herrin and John Curran were having related to the
potential for making some changes to the LRSA?
I will have to think about changing my proposal to require an agreement be
signed by the receiving entity.
On the one hand, as I do support private registries, it would seem strange
to me that a registry provides some service to somebody for free, and I
would expect every registry to have some contract with its customers.
And I don't like the idea of separate classes of addresses, it is my desire
to reconcile them under the same set of rules through voluntary acts.
And with the proposed change to the RSA included in my proposal and the
removal of needs requirements from 8.3, the fear of signing one may be
mitigated for a legacy holder.
On the other hand, the record shows that there is limited incentive for
legacy holders to sign any incarnation of the LRSA, so presumably they would
view the more-restrictive RSA as an anathema.
There is a relationship, though, between increasing transfer rights for
holders under an RSA and increasing the incentive to sign one.
And now legacy holders see that a bankruptcy court gave Nortel the
unrestricted right to transfer addresses originally allocated as legacy
space to entities Nortel acquired in the 1990s.
So addresses allocated to Company A passed into the "ownership" of Company B
without recourse to any ARIN processes. To these legacy holders, this is a
step in the recognition that these addresses ARE transferrable legally,
whether or not ARIN is involved, and whether or not whois is updated.
Presumably ARIN pitched MS hard to sign an RSA, so as to conform with the
8.3 policy as written, but met with resistance and instead settled for a
modified LRSA. To me this is evidence that these transactions involving
legacy space are bound to continue, and the acquiesence of ARIN to LRSA
tells me the legacy holders are negotiating from a position of legal
strength. In addition, legacy holders know they can be active in the APNIC
market without having to sign an agreement.
I want all transfers recorded in whois, and I don't want to miss recording
transactions due to requiring agreements that are onerous.
Still, as a legacy holder myself who has not signed the LRSA, I would be
inclined to sign the stripped-down LRSA Mr. Herrin suggested, and I would be
more likely to sign even an RSA upon adoption of my proposed policy, since
I would have new rights to resist a utilization review and would also have
the ability to do needs-free transfers. These things would go a long way in
overcoming existing disincentives to signing either agreement.
A side effect of the adoption of my proposal is that it would settle the
issue of address leasing, to my mind. Since an address holder could hold a
pool of addresses without fear of a section 12 review, and since he would be
free to transfer to another party without a needs requirement, he can
structure the transfer as a lease financially and contractually with the
lessee, and structure it as two 8.3 transfers with ARIN, one out to the
lessee, and then one back to the lessor at the end of the term.
This ability to lease has always been associated with an increased value of
legacy address space, in my mind. By allowing for RSA holders to hold
addresses, transfer to and from their customers, again the disincentive
towards signing the RSA are reduced.
Let me cogitate and maybe hear about the potential for change to the LRSA
that Bill and John were discussing, and I will submit a proposal that is
not a draft and the AC can take the temperature of the list.
Maybe the net effect of my proposal is to treat every pre-exhaust allocant
as near legacy-equivalents and wouldn't that be a good thing ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> RSA, I could support it. I do not support granting LRSA to transfer
>> recipients. The LRSA provides special benefits that are intended to
> I agree. The LRSA is an agreement between ARIN and a legacy resource
> A transfer recipient is not a legacy resource holder; a transfer
> recipient is a new
> resource holder.
> Also, there is no reason ARIN should adopt a more lax policy in
> that a resource holder will ignore their obligations in attempting to make
> 'undocumented' transfers not allowed by policy.
> Legitimizing non-needs-based transfers would encourage them.
> It is questionable whether black market transfers would even be
> attempted, otherwise, by any legacy holders with significant number
> resources assigned to their network.
More information about the ARIN-PPML